This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Paul D. Clement, the EEOC can bring a public enforcement action against Waffle House that is independent of any arbitration agreement between Waffle House and Eric Baker.
According to Paul D. Clement, the EEOC selected this case to clarify employers' obligations under the ADA, which was newly enacted at the time the events occurred in 1994.
According to Mr. Gordon, there is a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, as reflected in the Federal Arbitration Act.
Background and question before the Court
According to Paul D. Clement, waffle House and Eric Baker entered into an arbitration agreement that precludes court actions between them, but the EEOC was not a party to that agreement.
According to Justice, a question was raised whether the settlement (arbitration agreement) binds the Government.
What each side argues
Petitioner: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
According to Paul D. Clement, the EEOC's enforcement action is independent of the arbitration agreement and can seek all remedies available under Title VII.
According to Mr. Gordon, the EEOC is acting on behalf of Mr. Baker.
Respondent: Waffle House, Inc.
According to Respondent, respondent seeks to bind the EEOC to the results of an arbitration and to prevent the EEOC from seeking any remedies when no arbitration has been initiated.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, chief Justice Rehnquist announced the hearing for No. 99‑1823, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Inc.
A Justice asked whether the settlement clearly does not bind the Government.
According to Justice, a Justice questioned the objection to recognizing the arbitration agreement as such.
The Questioner asked whether there is a public interest in the case.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Paul D. Clement, the case addresses whether arbitration agreements can limit the EEOC's ability to enforce civil‑rights statutes such as Title VII.
According to Mr. Gordon, there is a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, as reflected in the Federal Arbitration Act.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9384e4979a1c9d245722-r1-414632c01a7decef.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.